News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on 'artificial photosynthesis' claimed 10x more efficient. Parent comment

Re:'artificial photosynthesis' claimed 10x more efficient by alwayslikethis on Monday February 20, 2023 @11:11PM (#34876457)
What? If we have money to spend on subsidizing stuff, we should subsidize the most efficient methods, which as parent implies, are the electrochemical methods.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:'artificial photosynthesis' claimed 10x more efficient by hammock on Tuesday February 21, 2023 @12:20AM (#34877006)
The most efficient way to create methane is actually to drill a well, isnt it?

I’m being downvoted for suggesting we incentivize something that will help us get off fossil fuels

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:'artificial photosynthesis' claimed 10x more efficient by adrianN on Tuesday February 21, 2023 @03:04AM (#34878167)
I think you're being downvoted because you suggest allocating a limited resource to a method that has better alternatives.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:'artificial photosynthesis' claimed 10x more efficient by hammock on Tuesday February 21, 2023 @06:55AM (#34880016)
So the tax credits should go to well drilling? And how is a tax credit a limited resource, when the US ran a deficit of over $1 trillion last year?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:'artificial photosynthesis' claimed 10x more efficient by adrianN on Wednesday February 22, 2023 @02:40AM (#34892803)
No, the tax credits should go to more efficient measures for atmospheric carbon capture. Tax credits are a limited resource because money's only use is to buy limited resources. If you increase the money supply to infinity, money loses its meaning.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:'artificial photosynthesis' claimed 10x more efficient by colechristensen on Tuesday February 21, 2023 @03:23AM (#34878312)
No you’re being downvoted because you’re suggesting the worse methane synthesis method should get subsidized when a better alternative exists.
[ Parent | on HN ]